1 2025:CGHC:42648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.540 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Prosecution versus Guddi Bai @ Khuiti Bai W/o Nandlal Rajwar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Parsodikala, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Accused/Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Dilman Rathi Minj, G.A. For Respondent : Shri Utkarsh Patel on behalf of Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 22.08.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.10.2018 passed by the JMFC, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Case No.2005/2011 whereby, the accused/Respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 & 324 IPC on two counts. SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.08.25 10:44:29 +0530 2 2. Summed up facts of the prosecution are that on 28.02.2011 at about 10 am, the accused/Respondent was cutting penta tree situated near the house of Complainant/victim namely Lalo Bai (PW-1) and as she objected the same, the Respondent/accused has assaulted her with the blunt side of axe and also abused her filthily in the name of mother and sister. It is alleged that when Sanmatia (PW-8) intervened, the Respondent/accused has bitten her also on her right arm which was witnessed by Tara Bai (PW-2) and two others. As Complainant/victim Lalo Bai (PW-1) was having pain, she has lodged FIR (not proved) on 04.03.2011 at PS Lakhanpur. Injured Complainant/victim Lala Bai (PW-1) and Sanmatia (PW-8) were medically examined (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-7). 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused/Respondent has abjured her guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents (Ex.P-1 to P-7). In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused/Respondent has stated that she has been falsely implicated, pleaded innocence and not examined any defence witness. 4. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, has acquitted the Respondent/accused as stated above. Hence, this Appeal. 3 5. Learned Government Advocate for the State/Appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in its proper perspective and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Contrastingly, learned Counsel for the accused/Respondent has supported the judgment impugned and submits that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with utmost circumspection. 8. It appears that there are various inconsistencies in the medical evidence as well as in the statements of the witnesses, particularly that of the complainant Lalo Bai (PW-1) and Sanmatia (PW-8). Sanmatia deposed that during the quarrel, when she reached the spot to pacify both the injured and the accused/respondent, the accused/respondent bit her on her right arm. However, Dr. P.S. Kerketta (PW-9), who examined the complainant/victim Lalo Bai (PW-1), did not find any such injury on her body and opined that the injury observed might have been caused by a hard and blunt object. Dr. Prem Singh Marco (PW-6) has opined that the injury found on the body of Complainant Lalo Bai (PW-1) is simple in nature (Ex.P-3). The incident has taken place on 28.02.2011 but the FIR, which has also not been proved during trial, was lodged belatedly on 04.03.2011 i.e. after about 4 days. 4 9. The law has been recently well settled in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakand reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 and the Supreme Court has directed therein that for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused, it has to be seen whether the same suffers from patent perversity; the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case law cited above and the settled principle that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one, therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 11. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya